On the Capitalism.org FAQ we find this jewel of an answer:
Why is “anarcho-capitalism” a contradiction in terms?
Those who attempt to combine anarchism with capitalism, make the error of confusing the peaceful form of competition of capitalism — trade, ideas, and dollars — with the brutal “jungle” form of competition of anarchism — brutality, whims, and bombs.
Have you ever thought what happens when one ‘corporate protection agency’ disagrees with another? By what method do they solve their dispute? They do it by competition not with dollars, but with guns. They seek to solve their dispute by resorting to force against each other, i.e., a perpetual state of civil war. Under such a system, which gang wins? The one that is the most brutal.
Ok let us add the precision it lacks to this sloppy argument.
1) Why or how is it than ancaps (short for anarcho-capitalists) make the mistake of confusing those two scenarios? Are they dumb and they can’t tell one from the other? Are they evil and they want to profit from a deliberate confusion? The FAQ author won’t tell us. Which is quite telling.
2) For an answer a question is foisted upon us: “Have you ever thought…?” but then we learn soon enough the question is merely rethorical for the author has the answer! “They seek to…by resolving to force.” Interesting. He’s omniscient and he knows what they seek. No theoretical or historical means for knowing this are made transparent to the reader. He just tells us “they seek to!” And of course civil war would be perpetual. Because of course physical violence is never tiring, expensive and painful in every possible sense, so it would be “perpetual.” But of course the very idea of a war is one that the author assumes with no previous explanation.
Well, let me ask a question to answer the rethorical question as if it was earnestly asked:1
Have you ever thought what happens when one Chamber of Commerce disagrees with another (please think of each one representing someone from either different regions or just both cohabiting in the same city)? They seek to solve their dispute by resorting to the least costly and prolonged method. That is, a third party which is not involved itself in the dispute and that has enough authority (expert power, the current jargon would say) as to produce a solution that both parties will abide by voluntarily. Under such a system, which Chamber of Commerce wins? The one that serves its client better and allows him to be considered a lawful member of society, worthy of long-term business relationships devoid of legal trickery. By “winning,” I mean, of course, both, insofar as they want to stay in the dispute resolution business.
Objectivists being a NeoMarxist breed never thus ask questions seeking to learn. Why would they, they have the Rand gospels to enlighten them, and any criticism is a just roadblock to Galt’s Gulch at best. ↩